Skip to main content
Glama
hancengiz

YouTube Transcript MCP Server

by hancengiz

Server Quality Checklist

67%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.
  • Latest release: v1.0.3

  • Disambiguation5/5

    The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: one retrieves a transcript, the other lists available languages. No overlap or confusion possible.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    Both tools follow a consistent 'get-{noun}' pattern, making the naming predictable and easy to understand.

    Tool Count3/5

    With only 2 tools, the server feels thin for its domain. While it covers the core need, a typical well-scoped server has more tools.

    Completeness3/5

    The server provides basic transcript retrieval and language listing, but lacks operations like searching transcripts or filtering by language, leaving minor gaps.

  • Average 3.7/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.

    See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.

    • 0 of 1 community issues answered or closed in the last 6 months
    • 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
    • No stable releases found
    • No critical vulnerability alerts
    • No high-severity vulnerability alerts
    • No code scanning findings
    • CI status not available
  • This repository is licensed under MIT License.

  • This repository includes a README.md file.

  • No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.

    Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.

  • Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.

  • If you are the author, simply .

    If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:

    {
      "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
      "maintainers": [
        "your-github-username"
      ]
    }

    Then . Browse examples.

  • Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

  • Behavior2/5

    Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

    No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states it 'list all available transcript languages' without disclosing behavioral traits like read-only nature, error handling for missing transcripts, authentication requirements, or rate limits. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotations.

    Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

    Conciseness5/5

    Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

    Single sentence with clear verb 'list' and resource. No wasted words, front-loaded.

    Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

    Completeness3/5

    Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

    Given the tool's simplicity (one param, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but incomplete. It doesn't mention return format, errors, or limitations (e.g., only works if transcript exists). Could be more complete.

    Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

    Parameters3/5

    Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

    Schema coverage is 100% (one parameter 'url' described as 'YouTube video URL'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

    Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

    Purpose5/5

    Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

    Description explicitly states the tool lists available transcript languages for a YouTube video. The verb 'list' and resource 'transcript languages' are specific, and it distinguishes from the sibling 'get-transcript' which presumably retrieves the actual transcript.

    Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

    Usage Guidelines3/5

    Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

    No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The sibling name 'get-transcript' implies a differentiation, but the description does not clarify when to choose this tool or what prerequisites exist (e.g., video must have captions).

    Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

  • Behavior3/5

    Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

    No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states the tool returns 'full transcript with timestamps' but does not mention error handling, rate limits, or what happens if a transcript is unavailable. A basic retrieval tool is expected, but the lack of edge-case information with no annotations makes this only adequate.

    Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

    Conciseness5/5

    Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

    The description is two sentences, no verbose or redundant phrasing. Front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by concise details on URL acceptance and output. Every sentence earns its place.

    Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

    Completeness3/5

    Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

    Given the tool has 3 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the basic 'what' but is vague on output format and error scenarios. It does not explain timestamps format or how to handle missing transcripts. It is minimally adequate for a simple tool but not fully informative.

    Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

    Parameters3/5

    Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

    Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal extra beyond the schema: it reinforces URL format flexibility and implies the default inclusion of timestamps, but does not provide significant new meaning for each parameter.

    Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

    Purpose5/5

    Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

    The description clearly states the verb 'Retrieve' and the resource 'transcript of a YouTube video', and distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'get-transcript-languages' by focusing on obtaining the actual transcript text. It also specifies handling various URL formats and returning timestamps, making the purpose very specific.

    Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

    Usage Guidelines4/5

    Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

    The description implies when to use this tool (to get a transcript) but does not explicitly mention the sibling tool 'get-transcript-languages' or when to prefer it. The context is clear for the core usage, but no exclusion or alternative guidance is provided.

    Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

  • Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
  • Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
  • Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

youtube-transcript-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

youtube-transcript-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/hancengiz/youtube-transcript-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server